9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 20,000 and returned income at Rs. 14,500 was increased to Rs. 34,738. Ultimately the Tribunal upheld an addition of Rs. 8,380. The tax effect of this addition was Rs. 2,666. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1) (c) and has levied a penalty of Rs. 3,000 only. The said penalty has been confirmed by the AAC on appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee has consequently come up in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, was of the opinion that the assessee had failed to substantiate his explanation in respect of his house-hold expenses which resulted in an enhancement of income by Rs. 8,380. Obviously this order is a half-heated attempt by the ITO to justify the levy of penalty which it would not be safe for us to uphold. The admission by the assessee that there was no record maintained for the house-hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held by the Bench that the said order was relevant and important piece of evidence, but was not conclusive that the income was earned by the assessee. The penalty was accordingly held not to be liveable. In CIT vs. Apsara Talkies (1983) 15 Taxman 384, penalty levied on account of difference between the cost of construction shown by the assessee and estimated by the Departmental valuer was h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as done with wilful or gross neglect. Even this decision of the High Court is not free from doubt in a much as, as reported at (1983) 141 ITR (St.) 43, there is a report that their Lordships of the Supreme Court had granted Special leave to the assessee to appeal against this decision. What we mean to say is that all furnishing of inaccurate particulars may not be sufficient to justify a levy of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
